But, getting rid of illegal aliens in the United States would be nice. Granted, allowances are given. But what is taking place now, is sickening).

On one hand, nobama had 5 years to engage this problem.

On the other hand, he blames Congress for not acting on immigration "reform".

Better yet, there ARE immigration laws but the states have been ORDERED not to enforce them.

So, instead of state governors being able to active their National Guard units(ironic, as nobama is going to utilize the D.H.S) and do what needs to be done, the problem only compounds on itself.

Even more worrisome, is nobama pledging more excecutive action, acting as the hero, up against an incompetent Congress. And while he makes a press conference, he really does not define exactly what he is going to do and how he will do it.

Actually, what is funny is the Americans taking issue with it when they do it themselves the other way and think nothing of it.

As to power plays in D.C..... the US government has been a dysfunctional mess for more than a decade. A well placed bunker bomb on Capital Hill when congress is in session (or better yet during a joint session) would do the country a world of good.

A fresh start would be like a breath of fresh air. It might even improve election turnouts too.

As to power plays in D.C..... the US government has been a dysfunctional mess for more than a decade

For WELL over a decade...in case, can lead one tot he JFK thread. Not about how...but about why. Some might argue that when he actually decided to be what a president should be (went up against the Federal Reserve) the coupe took place....but, that is speculation, at this point.

ttompatz wrote:
and now how can I find work in Korea on a 90-day tourist stamp (so I won't be tired to my employer) with the next breath?

[...]

Actually, what is funny is the Americans taking issue with it when they do it themselves the other way and think nothing of it.

Quote:

I don't follow the reference here

I didn't either...but ttompatz usually has good points to offer..perhaps it is us?

He means when a foreigner comes over here to korea to work on a tourist visa instead of a proper E-2, when we do that we are actually the illegal aliens. We think nothing of it but when it happens in our home country we get pissed. It makes sense.

Well, I should add, that am not amongst the "We". I have only worked on a proper E-2..

Though, if I remember correctly, Americans only used to have a 30 landing visa, whereas, our friends up north had a 90 day landing visa. So, I'm still a bit skeptical that "we" simply applies t Americans.

He means when a foreigner comes over here to korea to work on a tourist visa instead of a proper E-2, when we do that we are actually the illegal aliens. We think nothing of it but when it happens in our home country we get pissed. It makes sense.

I was hoping for something a bit more eloquent than that, seeing as 1) the number of Western English teachers (much less American ones specifically) that skirt immigration laws in such a fashion must be incredibly small, and 2) I never see Americans (or foreigners in general) rise up in defense of these people and demand special treatment for them. I know that, what, 8(?) years ago it was common for English teachers to enter on a tourist visa, begin work, and then shortly after make a visa run to Japan (I did this myself my first year in Korea). This, however, is a poor comparison to the Rio Grande situation as this practice, while not strictly legal, was so common and accepted as to be de facto legal. It also did not result in a humanitarian crisis for Korean immigration officials.

This, however, is a poor comparison to the Rio Grande situation as this practice, while not strictly legal, was so common and accepted as to be de facto legal. It also did not result in a humanitarian crisis for Korean immigration officials.

However, to see both sides of the manufactured debate, I will give consent to obama on his case, regarding Congress NOT acting...

Quote:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article I, Section 10, US Constitution

An invasion does not necessarily have to correlate with military tactics. Which also sheds light on the notion that considering the U.S. Congress has really, for the most part, done very little...whose side are they on?